In terms of the Democratic party support, I can only invoke the cliché: "where you stand depends on where you sit."

The desire (subconscious or not) of those in a ruling administration to maintain their own position and perpetuate the power structure feeds into a willingness to agree, even if when they are removed from the centre of power they are bitter opponents of a philosophy: in this case, Drone Strikes.

As for the public level: a combination of "team party politics" - where you support your team/party regardless of their policies - and general ignorance factor in hugely. It's amazing how common the argument in favour of Drone Strikes involves the line "well they're fighting terrorists, al-Qaeda and all that."

And you have to stop for a second and say: "wait, who told me the Admin. were fighting al-Qaeda? Did the Admin. tell me? If so, how can I trust that? How can I trust their sources? I wasn't there, and the Admin. is banking on that to encourage my silence. I can't prove the person wasn't interested in attacking America, so the Admin. can say what they want and public acceptance of this angle will mean that, in argument, the burden of proof lies on me, not on the Killers."